(12-06-2016 06:39 PM)Metazoa Zeke Wrote: The problem is that if you take guns, you aren't going to stop shootings.

This isn't entirely true.

If certain guns become illegal then the "law abiding" people will sell their guns to the government and those guns will then be out of circulation. It will be harder for those types of guns to come into the country and hence again, less in circulation.

(12-06-2016 06:39 PM)Metazoa Zeke Wrote: Criminals aren't going to give up guns if they were made illegal.

Many criminals will give up their guns. Not all criminals dear of shooting people or holding up people at gun point. Some criminals are have records due to non violent crimes.
If there are less guns in circulation then guns become harder to come by.
The police have the legal right to confiscate certain guns.

(12-06-2016 06:39 PM)Metazoa Zeke Wrote: The problem is also that it isn't guns in the first place. There are various factors when it comes to gun violence.

Guns make it easier for people to commit crimes, especially killing sprees.

(13-06-2016 01:29 PM)GirlyMan Wrote: uhhhhhh .... okay? ...... shouldn't it be difficult and expensive? I mean I don't think my 75yo mum walking around using an M-16 as a cane or crutch is good for anybody.

Are you trying to pick a fight, GM? You keep imputing meanings to what I say.
I have answered your questions with facts, not opinions. I have not attacked or defended anyone or anyone's position.

If you would like my opinion on this then ask.

ummmmm .... okay? ..... didn't realize I was flickin' your fellas. I thought I already did ask for your opinion but I will again.

(13-06-2016 01:47 PM)Chas Wrote: Are you trying to pick a fight, GM? You keep imputing meanings to what I say.
I have answered your questions with facts, not opinions. I have not attacked or defended anyone or anyone's position.

If you would like my opinion on this then ask.

ummmmm .... okay? ..... didn't realize I was flickin' your fellas. I thought I already did ask for your opinion but I will again.

shouldn't it be difficult and expensive?

Well, yes and no.
The price of an automatic weapon was artificially inflated by restricting the market to only those manufactured prior to May 19th, 1986, creating a finite (and dwindling) supply.

But restricting their availability by pricing them out of range of normal people just means that only the wealthy can have have them. That is patently unfair.
The restriction should be made administratively, not financially.

I see no practical use for civilian ownership (nor police ownership) of automatic weapons. Should they be available to civilians because the intent of the Second Amendment was to have a citizenry armed on a par with a military? Maybe, but times have changed. The U.S. now has a standing army, so part of the support for that reading of the Second Amendment disappears.

All in all, I'm not personally affected by the cost or difficulty of getting an automatic weapon (machine gun, assault rifle, submachine gun, machine pistol) although they are fun to shoot.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.

(13-06-2016 01:53 PM)Stevil Wrote: Take away the AR-15s and America would be no worse off then NZ or Aus.

AR 15s and high capacity magazines are allowed in NZ with E endorsements to your firearms license. Two valid reasons for an E endorsements are competing in 3-gun and service rifle. Both are shooting sports that I participate in in the US. You don't have to use an AR15 for either of those sports but most people including those in NZ do. To be competitive in both sports would require two AR15s because the guns people use to compete in those sports are configured differently. A 3-gun rifle is probably going to have a shorter barrel and be equipped with a low magnification optic. Probably a forward grip too, but not everyone uses those. The match rifle would have a longer 20" barrel and precision iron sights. Both sports require high capacity magazines.

The Auckland pistol club has a page for private sales. There is a 30 round Pmag for an AR, an 18 round mag for a CZ-75 P01 pistol and 2 different suppressor equipped guns listed for private sale there right now.

According to the FBI there were 44,077 murders involving firearms in the US from the start of 2009 through the end of 2013. 70.45% of the firearms related murders are know to have involved handguns. 3.7% of them are known to have involved rifles. Only some percentage of the later number would have been semi automatic military style rifles like the AR15. If you want to cut down on gun violence in the US you'd be better off concentrating on hand guns than worrying about AR15s because more people are killed here with baseball bats and hammers than are with AR15s.

Australian governments banned fully automatic rifles from the 1930s onward, varying from state to state. Western Australia originally had the strongest laws and lowest rates of gun violence, whilst Queensland had the weakest laws and the highest gun violence.

The Federal government banned semi-automatic rifles, semi-automatic shotguns, and pump-action shotguns after the 1996 Port Arthur massacre that killed 35 tourists. The gunman initially used an AR-15 with a 30-round mag and then an L1A1 SLR. The only possession exceptions now are with a Category D licence for miliary and LEOs while collectors can legally own deactivated Category D firearms. To be eligible for a 10-round mag, .38 or 9mm calibre handgun licence (Category H firearm), a target shooter must serve a probationary period of 6 months using club handguns, after which they may apply for a permit. Machine guns, rocket launchers, full automatic self loading rifles, flame-throwers, anti-tank guns, and howitzers are totally banned in all states.

So... since 1996, there has not been one single mass shooting (4+ fatalities) in Australia—with a population of 24 million people.

I understand that the above bar chart overstates the case somewhat as it includes shootings involving only [sic] 4 casualties, and which applies a pretty lose definition of "mass" as it relates to shooting deaths. Still, it looks pretty bad when compared to many other countries.

The latest (accurate?) ownership data I could find indicates that in the US in 2012, there were 101.05 guns owned for every 100 population, whereas in Australia in 2007 that figure was 15 guns owned for every 100 population. Why the major disparity between two highly developed, first-world Western countries?

And how or why does the NRA hold such a strong political influence in the US—which presumably facilitates this scenario? Why exactly are the politicians afraid of the NRA, and why do they kowtow to them? Bribery? Skeletons?

(13-06-2016 05:11 PM)SYZ Wrote: And how or why does the NRA hold such a strong political influence in the US—which presumably facilitates this scenario? Why exactly are the politicians afraid of the NRA, and why do they kowtow to them? Bribery? Skeletons?